Cell phones are increasingly common especially amongst adolescents and teenagers, and use of cell phones by young and novice operators of vehicles has become a grave hazard on roadways. Initially, it was thought that use of an operator's hand or hands during operation of the cell phone was the primary problem resulting in inattentive drivers. Therefore, many efforts focused upon development of “hands-free” cell phones, either integral with the vehicle, or by way of dashboard mounting of cell phones with removable headsets, or “BLUETOOTH” brand ear pieces, etc. However, more recent studies have concluded that the most distracting aspect of cell phone usage is a conversational interchange between the user and the person to whom the user is talking. Unlike a radio or musical sound system within a vehicle, which is exclusively one-way communication, cell phone usage is necessarily two-way communication that involves such a high level of mental activity that simultaneous careful operation of a vehicle frequently becomes a secondary concern.
More recently, cell phones have grown in technical complexity, involving “smart phones” that can access the internet for e-mail correspondence, and that include full mini-keyboards for “texting” messages, etc. Consequently, cell-phone based driver distractions have become an ever growing hazard. To minimize this potentially lethal hazard, many states have enacted laws severely restricting usage of cell phones while driving. Unfortunately, however, such laws are extremely difficult to enforce, especially at night when driving hazards are greatest because law enforcement officers are unable to see within vehicles.
This problem has been recognized and many efforts have been undertaken to eliminate usage of a cell phone by an operator of a vehicle. Such efforts however, typically require very costly and complex apparatus and systems and therefore have not experienced widespread acceptance. For example, a “Motion Disabled Cell Phone” is shown in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2005/0255874 A1 by Stewart-Baxter et al. The Stewart-Baxter cell phone includes use of a “Global Positioning System” (“GPS”) reader or an accelerometer integrated within a cell phone, and software within the cell phone to disable the cell phone when motion of the phone is detected by the GPS reader or accelerometer. Such a cell phone therefore, cannot be utilized in a moving vehicle. Another example is shown in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0268767 A1 to Brown et al., wherein an interference device and an antenna element secured within a vehicle produce a bare carrier wave or noise at sufficient power to interfere with operation of a cell phone within the vehicle. Both Stewart-Baxter et al. and Brown et al. require costly modifications to a cell phone and a vehicle, and both result in all cell phones within a vehicle being disabled.
Another example of an effort to restrict usage of cell phones in a vehicle is shown in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2007/0270122 A1 to Ewell Jr. The Ewell Jr. disclosure also requires use of a location tracking unit that uses a GPS signal and a disabling circuit within a cell phone. The resulting system may be utilized to disable cell phones when they are within a restricted region, provided the cell phones include the disabling circuit. These disclosures indicate that complex and costly systems are available for selectively disabling cell phones to suit particular conditions. However, none have gained wide acceptance probably because they require substantial modification to cell phones, which result in the inability of the modified cell phone to be utilized whether the owner of the cell phone is operating the vehicle, or merely a passenger in the vehicle. Therefore such unpopular modified cell phones are simply not available.